WONG CHIT SEN v. TSE KWONG LAM

WONG CHIT SEN v. TSE KWONG LAM

The court refused the late application to add particulars of collusion, bad faith and fraud because the proposed particulars were unnecessary to correct past pleading errors and would confuse the real issues; moreover imputations of fraudulent intention cannot be permitted at this stage without the most cogent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WONG CHIT SEN v. TSE KWONG LAM
Parties
Claimant (defendant in Original Action): Tse Kwong Lam; Respondent (plaintiff in Original Action, 1st Defendant): Wong Chit Sen; Respondent (2nd Defendant): Ching Wai Shork; Respondent (3rd Defendant): Chit Sen Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 November 1978
Case Number
HCA2102/1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Mortgage, Contract and Equitable Claims / Pre Trial Application to Amend Counterclaim (leave to Amend)
Outcome
Application to amend counterclaim refused except for deletion of specified words; costs to Respondents and certificate for counsel.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Mortgagee's Power of Sale, Equitable Fraud, Right of Redemption, Particulars of Fraud, Undervalue Sale
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Property Law Equity Contract Amendment of Pleadings Mortgagee's Power of Sale Equitable Fraud Right of Redemption +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tse Kwong Lam

Claimant (defendant in Original Action)

Wong Chit Sen

Respondent (plaintiff in Original Action, 1st Defendant)

Ching Wai Shork

Respondent (2nd Defendant)

Chit Sen Company Limited

Respondent (3rd Defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Mortgage, Contract and Equitable Claims / Pre Trial Application to Amend Counterclaim (leave to Amend)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to amend a long‑standing counterclaim should be granted at a late stage
  2. 2 Whether particulars of collusion, bad faith and equitable fraud must be supplied
  3. 3 Whether allegations imputing fraudulent intention can be permitted without cogent particulars or evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the late application to add particulars of collusion, bad faith and fraud because the proposed particulars were unnecessary to correct past pleading errors and would confuse the real issues; moreover imputations of fraudulent intention cannot be permitted at this stage without the most cogent particulars or evidence. Lateness was considered but not decisive.

Court Disposition

Application to amend counterclaim refused except for deletion of specified words; costs to Respondents and certificate for counsel.

Orders

  • Leave to amend refused except deletion of the words 'for fraud and conspiracy' in paragraph 11(3)
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents